Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
Next: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 30 Apr 2005 02:00 In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:18:56 GMT <nssv61d19gtunb4mtcstc0be42rjp6n9b4(a)4ax.com>: > On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:01:43 +0200, YBM <ybmess(a)nooos.fr> wrote: > >>Henri Wilson a ýcrit : >>> Get hold of a windows based machine and run my VBasic program: >>> >>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe >>> >>> It tells you the whole story. It shows how the BaT predicts >>> most variable star brightness curves. >> >>http://zgub.homelinux.org/RH/wilson-is-a-computer-genious.jpg >>http://zgub.homelinux.org/RH/wilson-is-a-computer-genious2.jpg >>http://zgub.homelinux.org/RH/wilson-is-a-computer-genious3.jpg >> >>Of couse your mileage may vary, you could get error 12 or error 14. >>Sometime the program doesn't crash for ten seconds or so. > > Get a decent computer, idiot.. There are issues if the computer's power supply isn't up to spec. If YBH can remove one of his disk drives and it works better, he might have to beef up the power supply. However, the above links look more like software bugs. [.sigsnip] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 30 Apr 2005 02:00 In sci.physics, bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote on Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:44:08 +0000 (UTC) <Xns9646C8C567C5WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>: > H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > news:ebq27114h0j7ooce3h3vo1d6se1o4dspmn(a)4ax.com: > >> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:11:51 +0000 (UTC), bz >> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>news:b8h2719k4fhf6m6shbrsd7hqsbag8p3gh4(a)4ax.com: >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>Which is exactly what I am trying to demonatrate to the BaT people. >>>>> >>>>>They think that c'=c+v >>>>>They think that the speed of light is dependent on the velocity of the >>>>>source. >>>> >>>> No they don't. >>>> >>>> They say: >>>> 1) 'speed of light' is a meaningless expression on its own. >>> >>>we disagree. >> >> The 'speed' of anything is a meaningless expression anywhere, anytime. > > Tell that to the policeman when he writes you a ticket. Pedant Point: The policeman has the luxury of an absolute reference frame (the roadway) and enough slop in the measurement (5 * 10^-15 is the gamma corrective factor at 30 m/s = 67 mph) so that he can new the relatively simpler Newtonian computations. An interstellar cop trying to overtake a rogue light beam might not be quite so lucky... :-) > > Speed is the magnitude of velocity, it is not meaningless. > One may specify direction to give more information, but > speed is a useful term to use when the direction does > not matter. > > Speed of light is a commonly used and accepted term in physics. But we're getting sloppy about it. :-) Of course, with SR and GR, we can get very sloppy; light is c relative to everything (at least, during the traveling-through-a-vacuum-are-we-there-yet? part; once it hits some cesium atoms, though, it might slow to a dead crawl :-) ). Even with BaT one can still characterize lightspeed as a constant, but only with respect to the origination of the light. > >> >>> >>>> All speeds >>>> must be defined as relative. > >>>we agree with the exception of things like light and sound that have >>>constant velocities (assuming vacuum for light, uniform media for >>>sound). >> >> For sound, speed is defined as relative to he medim in which it is >> conveyed. > > Didn't you just say the "'speed' of anything is a meaningless > expression anywhere, anytime"? Ah well "consistancy is the > hobgobblin of small minds", as someone once said. Emerson, and the quote was more along the lines of "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds". I'd have to google it to be 100% sure, admittedly. Isaac Asimov explains some of his fumbles in his fiction using this phrase. (_Isaac Asimov's Mysteries_) > > But the shift is observable and is due to relative motion of source and > observer. > >> For light in vacuum, there is no reference medium. > > So what? the shift is observable and is due to relative motion of source > and observer. And is different for the two theories. BaT: c/(c+v) SR: gamma * c/(c+v) > >> The only >> reference is its source. > > That is demonstrably false. Doppler shift of light, radar, and sound all > depend on the relative velocity of the source and the observer. > >> The claim that light travels at 'c' wrt all observers is unsubstantiated >> and nonsensical. > > The claim has never been falsified and makes sense to me. Seconded. It's been tested a number of times. > >> >>> >>>> 2) Tthe speed of light happens to be 'c' wrt its source, >>> >>>we agree. >>> >>>> 'c' being a universal constant. >>>> 3) Light from a moving source will move at c+v relative to the >>>> observer. >>> >>>We disagree. >>>Light moves at c wrt observer, wrt source, wrt all possible observers. >> >> The claim that light travels at 'c' wrt all observers is unsubstantiated >> and nonsensical. > > The claim that light travels at 'c' wrt all observers has never been > falsified. > > The claim that c'=c+v is unsubstatiated and seems nonsensical to me. It's sensible enough. It's unsubstantiated, of course, and has some major problems, mostly because it's not all that consistent with our observations (one of which might be characterized as "the superluminal muon problem"). It's a bit like the following computer program: int main() { printf("%d\n", 0.25); } ("%d" expects an integer and formats it for printout, in C). The program is syntactically valid (the compiler can understand it) but won't work as expected. [rest snipped] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: bz on 30 Apr 2005 04:43 dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in news:slrnd7676m.7k.dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net: > bz: > >"G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote in news:1114769646.014073.265000 > >@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > > > >> BZ > >> > >> I agree with your statement on doppler shifts. Why don't you do the > >> experiment and > >> c ? > > > >I need to interest some people in getting the equipment together and > >running the experiment. > > The direct measurement of the source independence has been done to > much better precision that you could hope to acheive in any experiment > using terrestrial light sources at any physically attainable velocity, > or conceivable flight pat length, even if you could somehow obtain the > best equipment in existence. Yes, but the 'time of flight' light speed (TOFLS) of the photons hasn't been monitored, per se in this context AFAIK. That left 'wiggle room' for saying 'the photons were going faster and slower'. TOFLS doesn't leave that wiggle room. What do you think of my proposed experiment? > > There's been a test performed using the light from a binary pulsar > system > (PSR J0437-4715, stratten. et al). The pulsars orbit about a common > center of mass such that the pilsars are moving away from or toward the > earth with the maximum variation of their velocities at +/-13 km/sec. > The pulsars are located a distance of about 140 parsecs. They measure > the speed to constant with an uncertainty of 2 cm/year. I understand and agree. > Henri is a > crackpot who makes stuff up just to read his own bullsh*t. I try to treat everyone who is reasonably polite toward me with respect. If they start calling me stupid or other names, I warn them once and then killfile them. He has been reasonably polite, so far. > He's tried to > claim classical physcs is wrong based upon his idea that changing from > center of mass coordinates to a different coordinate system violates > conservation of energy. He's utterly hopeless. Where there is life there is hope. :) > If he thinks he's > about to be pinned down, he'll invent a new theory in an hour and > then write a simulation he expects you to download as an executable > and run because he thinks it's impossible for his programs to > be or become infected with viruses. I have run a couple of those in a 'sandbox' virtual machine under vmwear. I don't care if they are infected with viruses. So far, no sign of a virus, but if he gets 'lucky' and his machine is infected, his programs will be too. Perhaps someday he will get lucky. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: bz on 30 Apr 2005 04:58 The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in news:mrhbk2-37q.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net: > In sci.physics, bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote > on Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:44:08 +0000 (UTC) > <Xns9646C8C567C5WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>: >> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >> news:ebq27114h0j7ooce3h3vo1d6se1o4dspmn(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:11:51 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>> >>>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>>news:b8h2719k4fhf6m6shbrsd7hqsbag8p3gh4(a)4ax.com: >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Which is exactly what I am trying to demonatrate to the BaT people. >>>>>> >>>>>>They think that c'=c+v >>>>>>They think that the speed of light is dependent on the velocity of >>>>>>the source. >>>>> >>>>> No they don't. >>>>> >>>>> They say: >>>>> 1) 'speed of light' is a meaningless expression on its own. >>>> >>>>we disagree. >>> >>> The 'speed' of anything is a meaningless expression anywhere, anytime. >> >> Tell that to the policeman when he writes you a ticket. > > Pedant Point: > > The policeman has the luxury of an absolute reference > frame (the roadway) and enough slop in the measurement > (5 * 10^-15 is the gamma corrective factor at 30 m/s = 67 > mph) so that he can new the relatively simpler Newtonian > computations. > > An interstellar cop trying to overtake a rogue light beam > might not be quite so lucky... :-) Yes, but he hasn't just said 'speed of light is a meaningless expression, anywhere, anytime.' :) > >> >> Speed is the magnitude of velocity, it is not meaningless. >> One may specify direction to give more information, but >> speed is a useful term to use when the direction does >> not matter. >> >> Speed of light is a commonly used and accepted term in physics. > > But we're getting sloppy about it. :-) Of course, with SR and GR, > we can get very sloppy; light is c relative to everything > (at least, during the traveling-through-a-vacuum-are-we-there-yet? > part; once it hits some cesium atoms, though, it might slow > to a dead crawl :-) ). Yes. > > Even with BaT one can still characterize lightspeed as a constant, > but only with respect to the origination of the light. > That is why I wanted an experiment that could falsify BaT. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> All speeds >>>>> must be defined as relative. >> >>>>we agree with the exception of things like light and sound that have >>>>constant velocities (assuming vacuum for light, uniform media for >>>>sound). >>> >>> For sound, speed is defined as relative to he medim in which it is >>> conveyed. >> >> Didn't you just say the "'speed' of anything is a meaningless >> expression anywhere, anytime"? Ah well "consistancy is the >> hobgobblin of small minds", as someone once said. > > Emerson, and the quote was more along the lines of > "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds". I think you hit it on the nose. 'ouch'. > > I'd have to google it to be 100% sure, admittedly. Isaac > Asimov explains some of his fumbles in his fiction > using this phrase. (_Isaac Asimov's Mysteries_) It is sad he is gone. I wish I could say I have most of his books. I do have a few of them. >> But the shift is observable and is due to relative motion of source and >> observer. >> >>> For light in vacuum, there is no reference medium. >> >> So what? the shift is observable and is due to relative motion of >> source and observer. > > And is different for the two theories. > > BaT: c/(c+v) > SR: gamma * c/(c+v) > >> >>> The only >>> reference is its source. >> >> That is demonstrably false. Doppler shift of light, radar, and sound >> all depend on the relative velocity of the source and the observer. >> >>> The claim that light travels at 'c' wrt all observers is >>> unsubstantiated and nonsensical. >> >> The claim has never been falsified and makes sense to me. > > Seconded. It's been tested a number of times. Yes. >>>>> 2) Tthe speed of light happens to be 'c' wrt its source, >>>> >>>>we agree. >>>> >>>>> 'c' being a universal constant. >>>>> 3) Light from a moving source will move at c+v relative to the >>>>> observer. >>>> >>>>We disagree. >>>>Light moves at c wrt observer, wrt source, wrt all possible observers. >>> >>> The claim that light travels at 'c' wrt all observers is >>> unsubstantiated and nonsensical. >> >> The claim that light travels at 'c' wrt all observers has never been >> falsified. >> >> The claim that c'=c+v is unsubstatiated and seems nonsensical to me. > > It's sensible enough. It's unsubstantiated, of course, and > has some major problems, mostly because it's not all that > consistent with our observations (one of which might be > characterized as "the superluminal muon problem"). > > It's a bit like the following computer program: > > int main() > { > printf("%d\n", 0.25); > } > > ("%d" expects an integer and formats it for printout, in C). Sie Sie. C's printf doesn't automatically cast objects into proper form. > The program is syntactically valid (the compiler can > understand it) but won't work as expected. > > [rest snipped] -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Bilge on 30 Apr 2005 07:17
bz: >dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in >news:slrnd7676m.7k.dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net: > >> bz: >> >"G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote in news:1114769646.014073.265000 >> >@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: >> > >> >> BZ >> >> >> >> I agree with your statement on doppler shifts. Why don't you do the >> >> experiment and >> >> c ? >> > >> >I need to interest some people in getting the equipment together and >> >running the experiment. >> >> The direct measurement of the source independence has been done to >> much better precision that you could hope to acheive in any experiment >> using terrestrial light sources at any physically attainable velocity, >> or conceivable flight pat length, even if you could somehow obtain the >> best equipment in existence. > >Yes, but the 'time of flight' light speed (TOFLS) of the photons hasn't >been monitored, per se in this context AFAIK. That left 'wiggle room' for >saying 'the photons were going faster and slower'. Actually, it doesn't leave any ``wiggle room.'' Recall that at points in the orbit one pulsar is receeding from the earth at 13 km/sec while the other is moving toward the earth at 13 km/sec. >TOFLS doesn't leave that wiggle room. What do you think of my proposed >experiment? Since someone along the way posted a reply outside the context of the thread, the thread is not intact, so I can't search backwards through the parent articles to find the post which describes the experiment in its entirety. I'll look at it if you post the message-id (not a url pointing to google), but I'm not going to reconstruct the all of the sub-threads, sub-sub-threads, etc., and start from the parent article to find it. [...] >> Henri is a >> crackpot who makes stuff up just to read his own bullsh*t. > >I try to treat everyone who is reasonably polite toward me with respect. >If they start calling me stupid or other names, I warn them once and then >killfile them. He has been reasonably polite, so far. Only if you consider him to be polite because he doesn't use invective as he strings you along for the express purpose of wasting your time by pretending to be interested in your replies or at least consider your reply. Quite the contrary. Henri has made the same stupid arguments, day after day, month after month, year after year. The only thing he learns from a serious reply is how to rephrase the question to avoid getting the same reply next time he posts. Trust me, the only time it's worthwhile to respond to henri is when he post something with a lot of potential for sarcasm or humor at his expense. Frankly, I find what ``Traveler'' posts to be more polite, since at least he doesn't make any pretense about having no interest in being enlightened. >> He's tried to >> claim classical physcs is wrong based upon his idea that changing from >> center of mass coordinates to a different coordinate system violates >> conservation of energy. He's utterly hopeless. > >Where there is life there is hope. :) Optimism is one thing. Wishing for miracles is another. If stupidity was a communicable disease, henri would have wiped out a continent and be considered a fair target for a nuclear warhead as a means of halting the epidemic. >> about to be pinned down, he'll invent a new theory in an hour and >> then write a simulation he expects you to download as an executable >> and run because he thinks it's impossible for his programs to >> be or become infected with viruses. > >I have run a couple of those in a 'sandbox' virtual machine under vmwear. >I don't care if they are infected with viruses. The point is, that henri cannot concieve of how his executables could become infected despite claiming to understand how to write a program that does what he claims. I once gave him a simple example of round-off error using an _exact_ algorithm to calculate J_10(0) starting from J_0(0) given to (if I recall) 13 digits precision. He could neither understand what a bessel is nor how the result could be wrong. >So far, no sign of a virus, but if he gets 'lucky' and his machine is >infected, his programs will be too. Perhaps someday he will get lucky. How would he know? |